3.POLICE IN INDIA – FIRST INFORMATION REPORT OR FIRST INSULTING RESPONSE

4.AN APPEAL TO HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF UTTAR PRADESH INDIA

5.AN APPEAL TO HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF UTTAR PRADESH INDIA

6.AN APPEAL TO HONOURABLE FOREIGN MINISTER OF MYANMAR

EDITORIAL : DEATH PENALTY RIGHT OR WRONG ?

-AN APPEAL TO H.E.PRESIDENT OF INDIA & ALL HUMANE PERSONS

WHY DO WE KILL PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE TO TELL PEOPLE THAT KILLING PEOPLE IS BAD ???

A criminal is not born, but made by social circumstances. For the crime scenario in India , every citizen of India is indirectly responsible. Our present inefficient, corrupt legal system , is wholly dependent on evidences which a rich criminal can create or destroy at his sweet will. Police forcibly take confessions from the accussed , by applying 3rd degree torture methods. Some of the judges are literally auctioning " judicial orders" for bribe. Due to all these reasons one cann't be 100% sure about one criminal's conviction. In such cases, capital punishment will be unfair & inhuman. It must be made mandatory, in all death penalty cases that polygraph, lie detector tests, etc must be conducted on " death convicts " , to know whether they are innocent or guilty inspite of hostile evidences. Fundamentally, the capital punishment has failed as a deterrent.

The people who clamour for continuance of death penalty are BIASED, INHUMAN, BUTCHERS & CANIBALS. Why don't they ask for death penalty to policemen, who murder people through 3rd degree torture, in lock-ups & fake encounters ? why don't they ask for death penalty to corrupt judges who sells judicial orders for bribe ? why don't they ask for death penalty to builders who cause building collapses, resulting in mass murders ? why don't they ask for death

penalty to corrupt government doctors who refuses to treat poor patient without bribe, causing the murder of poor patient ? why don't they ask for death penalty to industrialist/ traders who sell adulterated food items, spurious drugs/ medicines, in turn causing mass murders ? why don't they ask for death penalty to corrupt government officials , who help criminals, industrialists? Why don't they ask for death penalty to politicians who create communal & other riots, who have ties with foreign intelligence agencies, terrorist outfits ? Why don't they ask for death penalty to mole in the P.M.O & the senior officers of National Security Council who passed on national secrets ? Why don't they ask for death penalty to public servants , ministers who gave aid , support to terrorist outfits like L.T.T.E out of government of india coffers , killing hundreds of srilankans , tamils ?

These are the guilty persons , criminals who don't personally , directly murder human beings but cunningly murder hundreds which go unnoticed by any. For the person who barbarically murders one human being you prescribe CAPITAL PUNISHMENT but for those who murder hundreds you say nothing why ? THEY WON'T ASK FOR IT, BECAUSE MOST OF THE PERSONS WHO ARE DEMANDING DEATH PENALTY ARE BIASED, SELFISH & BELONG TO ONE OF THE SECTIONS OF CRIMINALS MENTIONED ABOVE. They lack objectivity.

Death penalty is the ultimate . cruel , inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life Article 1 of universal declaration of human rights. It is irrevocable , prone to judicial errors and can be inflicted on innocents. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. In most of the countries including india , judicial system is ineffective , inefficient to prosecute impartially both poor & rich criminals. Those condemned to death penalty mostly come from poor background who are unable to afford wise & articulate Advocates who can efficiently argue their case. Against these poor accussed , the criminal nexus of police-criminal-bureaucrat builds up fake evidences , extracts forced confessions by 3rd degree torture. Most of death convicts world over belongs to either poor , TRIBALS , DALITS , etnic minorities , political dissidents , children , mentally ill. No rich & mighty criminal is ever prosecuted let alone hanged.

The judicial system which depends on technical facts like evidences lacks sense to figure out truth out of fake evidences , also as judges are human beings they are prone to err. Add to this corruption in judiciary. Death penalty is irreversible & irrevocable. In a mature democracy like U.S.A with relatively efficient judicial system itself hundreds of cases of death convicts were found to be wrong , convicts were found to be innocents upon review & were let free. Where as in india , the accussed lacks the wherewithal to argue his case in the first place then how can he arrange for case review ? no judge is god , if a hanged person is found to be innocent the judge doesn't has the ability to bring back the hanged person to life , do such judges have right to snatch away lives ?

1.to stay all death penalties until equitable criminal justice system with respect to above mentioned rich & mighty criminals is put into force .

2.until death penalty is abolished, to make poly graph, lie detector tests mandatory for all death convicts in a free & fair manner by a neutral authority , to ascertain whether the convict is really guilty or innocent of the alleged crime .

3.until death penalty is abolished , to give a peaceful choice of death to the death convicts like sleeping pill, injection, gun shot, etc instead of medieval & barbaric " death by hanging".

4. finally, to abolish death penalty from statuette books.

JAI HIND. VANDE MATARAM.

Your's sincerely,

Nagaraj.M.R.

AN APPEAL TO HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA

Dear Prime Minister,

We urge your government to support the resolution calling for a global moratorium on executions, at the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) starting in September 2007. Supported by countries from all regions of the world, such resolution would be an important milestone towards the abolition of the death penalty in all countries.

We oppose the death penalty in all cases and without exception believing it to be a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims, as has been persistently demonstrated.

A momentum is gathering to end capital punishment in all countries: 130 countries, from all regions of the world, have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice and only 25 countries carried out executions in 2006. Amnesty International’s statistics also show a significant overall decline in the number of reported executions in 2006. By adopting a resolution on a moratorium on executions, the UNGA will take a further, important step towards the fulfillment of the established UN goal of abolition of the death penalty set out by the UNGA in 1977 (resolution 31/61 of 8 December 1977.)

The vote on this resolution affords India the opportunity to support the eventual abolition of the death penalty at the international level and strengthen world opinion against capital punishment.

As the Human Rights Committee (now Council) stated “all measures of abolition should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life” (General Comment No 6.). I strongly encourage India to vote in favour of the resolution on a moratorium on executions due to be presented at the UNGA 62nd session beginning this September.

The criminal justice system of India, though it has manifold arms for execution and delivery, derives much of its authority through the tenets provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is through the seamless authority flowing from this code that the criminal justice delivery system of this country functions.

Early under the British regime, criminal procedures for courts in the Presidency Towns and in the Mofussil (a district subdivision of the time) were not the same. To implement a uniform pattern of criminal procedure for all courts in India the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 10) of 1882 was handed down. This was superseded by Act 5 of 1898, and further substantial changes were brought in by Act 18 of 1923 and Act 26 of 1955. Local Amendment Acts of the state legislatures were also introduced to separate the judiciary from the executive.

But the country had to wait until 1955 for the Central Law Commission to be set up, which attempted a comprehensive revision of the old code. The new code is based on the recommendations of the Law Commission as contained in its Forty-First Report presented in 1969, which also took into account the earlier reports dealing in specific maters. The changes made were substantive and numerous.

The code as it stands now professes to deal exhaustively with the law of procedure and tries to provide in the minutest detail the steps to be followed in all matters pertaining to general administration of criminal law. Over time, the code has lost much of its initial glory and it is high time that, in light of the advancement of science and technology and perplexing complexity of the criminal mind in this advanced society, it be subject to revision.

In this article I am not attempting to comprehend the code as such, or to comment on its entire provisions so as either to suggest a modification or possible mode of revision. That would be a highly exhaustive task demanding meticulous attention to detail. Instead I would like to limit my reflections to a particular section of the code that provides for the initiation of police enquiry into any given crime. This section is contained in Chapter XII of the code and is titled Information to Police and Their Power to Investigate. It reads as follows.

Sec. 154. Information in cognizable cases.

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given for with, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this code and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in of a police station in relation to that offence."

The First Information Report (FIR) is the key to a successful criminal investigation. It is the trigger that sets into motion the investigation mechanism in a given crime. It is interesting to note, however, that the term "first information" is not mentioned in the code. It merely says "information recorded under Sec.154".

The details to be recorded in the FIR are exhaustive. It contains the date and time of giving the information, police station where it is recorded, place, date and time where the offence has taken place, the names of the persons who have committed the offence, probable provisions under the Indian Penal Code or any other enactment under which the offences are punishable, the information in detail, name and address of the informant and the action taken.

The object of the FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion, whereas for the investigator it is to gather information regarding the offence so as to take appropriate action to book the offender. It acts as a record book. In either case it aims to record the information as early as possible and for future reference. The law stipulates that the information has to be recorded immediately on receipt. Here the nature of the offence is also important. Only when information is received regarding a cognizable offence can the police investigate without the order of a magistrate; in the case of a non-cognizable offence, the informant has to be referred to a magistrate.

The law, is clear and it has been reinforced by the decisions of the courts. Even if the information regarding a crime is received over the telephone, and even if the call is anonymous, it has to be put into writing as an FIR (Criminal Law Journal 1980, p. 1397). But this doesn"t mean that any vague or cryptic information can be treated as information for recording an FIR. Whether it amounts to "first information" or not is essentially a question of fact depending on the circumstances in each case (All India Reporter 1961 Kerala 99). Therefore, in determining whether a report amounts to an FIR or not, regard should be had to the following:

1. It should not be vague or indefinite but give facts showing commission of a cognizable offence enabling the police, or give a scent to allow police to take up investigation.

2. It may be given by anyone, not merely the person aggrieved or by someone on his behalf.

3. It need not name anyone as the offender or witness; nor need it state the circumstances of the commission of the crime. It is simply the first information that sets the police in motion.

In a case where the first information is in fact given by the accused, it stands on a similar footing as information by any other person except that the confessional part, if any, must be excluded. This is because such statements, if taken with the confessional part, fall under Sec. 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, there is no bar to a confession in an FIR being used in favour of the accused. Where a person lodging an FIR is subsequently accused of the offence, it is an admission of certain facts that have a bearing on the question to be determined by the court. When the accused gives the first information, that fact is admissible against the accused as evidence of conduct under Sec. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Where the information is not confessional, it is still admissible against the accused under Sec. 21 of the Indian Evidence Act (All India Reporter 1966 Supreme Court 119, All India Reporter 1964 Supreme Court 1850).

Other details in the section are also important. The information provided has to be reduced into writing. This is a mandatory condition. The information being taken down has to be read over to the informant, and the signature of the informant obtained. A copy of the statement has to be served free of cost to the informant. This is also mandatory. The matter further has to be entered in the General Diary or the Station Diary and the FIR has to be forwarded to the local magistrate for the court records as well. Omitting information from the station diary will not necessarily vitiate the trial, but it will have important bearing if the date and time of lodging the FIR is questioned during trial.

The FIR is a highly valuable and vital piece of evidence in a criminal trial. It is necessary to corroborate the oral evidence in the case (All India Reporter 1973 Supreme Court 501). It is the first version of the incident and is of considerable value as it reveals the materials that the investigation commenced with and what the original version of the story was. It has high practical value since the information is from the earliest instance, when the memory is clear and vivid.

So given the law, what happens in practice? Even though the contents of the FIR and the details therein are very explicit, the instances of misusing these entries and inadequate entering of the necessary details are rampant. Often, even if information is given, with graphic details, the police fail to record a statement and to initiate any action. It is the duty of the police officer in charge of a station to record the information and take appropriate action. But often the officer in charge fails to perform his duty. The reasons are manifold-lack of responsibility, corruption, nepotism etc. Whatever the reason, the mechanism that ought to be set in motion simply does not work, resulting in failure of justice. Cognizable offences are reported to the police, yet are not recorded, are recorded carelessly, or falsely recorded on purpose to permit the accused an easy walk through in the trail.

The Criminal Procedure Code has laid down provisions for reporting the offences and the modus of recording, but it has failed to foresee the possibility of an officer committing errors either willfully or accidentally. The only safeguard is to address the superior officer on the dereliction of duty by a subordinate officer. But this is limited to cases when the officer in charge fails to record the information, and not where the information recorded is improper. Under any circumstances, the law again places utmost confidence in the police officers. What if the higher officer is also corrupt or reluctant to act to meet the ends of justice? The only option for the informant is to approach the courts to redress the grievances, which would take at least six to seven months to begin an inquiry, given the number of cases pending disposal before the various courts in this country. Such investigations suffer inordinate delays before being set into motion. Yet the very purpose of recording an FIR is to get a picture of the incident while it is clear and vivid in the informant"s memory. That is probably why the law does not even permit a preliminary enquiry into the incident before recording an FIR, because it would destroy its value and pave the way for fabrication of cases (All India Reporter 1961 Kerala 99).

At this point it is pertinent to note that the courts have dealt with delays in filing an FIR as to be viewed according to the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, a delay in lodging an FIR in a case of rape is treated differently from a murder in broad daylight. The mindset of the person lodging the information, especially the victim in a rape case, is important, and in such cases a delay of days has been excused. The effect of a delay must fall for consideration on all facts and circumstances of a given case (All India Reporter 1973 Supreme Court 1). Whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case depends upon several factors, including the defense.

However the delay in many FIR submissions is caused not by the informants, but by the police themselves. For the ordinary person, the business of lodging an FIR can often turn out to be a disgusting if not insulting experience. Instances are many when the police accuse the person lodging the information of making unnecessary work for them and order the informant out of the police station. There are reported cases where women who went to lodge information were raped or other wise molested by police officers. The Apex Court has on various occasions condemned such acts and has held the police responsible and awarded compensation to the victims. So for an ordinary citizen without power and influence, the FIR sometimes turns out to be nothing more than the First Insulting Response.

The police have their own way of circumventing the provisions of any given enactment so as to facilitate their needs. The FIR is one example of where they have ample opportunities to make space to wet their beaks in future. For instance, the code does not insist that the accused be named while recording the FIR. The police have various ways of exploiting this provision. They can simply record a known person or persons in the column provided and later arrest them for committing the crime. Having made the arrests, they can stage-manage the trial and give evidence congenial for an acquittal after accepting bribes or other undue gratification.

Now the Central Government has embarked upon an attempt to revise the Criminal Procedure Code of this country so as to contain the rampant misuse of these procedures. However improved and advanced be the procedural law, it will be of little help if police prosecutions are not properly launched and if the inherent inertia of the police in this country is not promptly tackled to address their indolent methods and the inefficient investigation of crimes wreaking havoc on the criminal justice dispensation system of this country.

I am writing to express my concern regarding the case of Mr. Mangala Prasad, a human rights activist associated with the People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR). I am informed that Mangala was threatened by the first and second perpetrators named above for organising a protest against the corrupt practices of the perpetrators 3 to 6 on October 20, 2007.

I am informed that Mangala is a human rights activist associated with the PVCHR working for the Nut and Musahar community in and around Badagaon Block, particularly in the villages within Badagaon Block. I am also aware that in the recent past the perpetrators 3, 4 and 5 were demanding bribes for distribution of trolleys to the Nut and Musahar communities in Hamipur village, against which the villagers and Mangala organised a protest. I am also informed that the perpetrators 1 and 2 above had threatened Mangala saying that perpetrators 3 to 6 had engaged 1 and 2 to kill Mangala, if he continued with his human rights work in the region.

I am further informed that Mangala had approached the Phulpur Police Station to lodge a complaint against the perpetrators on October 21, 2007. But the police refused to register a case regarding the incident, inspite of the fact that Mangala was threatened for a second time in front of the police officer while Mangala was inside the police station to lodge a complaint.

I am aware that threatening a person with murder is a cognizable offense in Uttar Pradesh. In spite of this the local police refusing to register a case, to me, mean that the local police is in fact interested in protecting the perpetrators in their case or are under their influence.

I therefore urge you to immediately intervene in this case and take appropriate actions so that

1. The safety of Mangala is ensured and that he is able to continue his work, if required with police protection;

2. The full statement of Mangala is to be recorded by the local police and a copy to be given to Mangala immediately;

3. The local police register a crime against the perpetrators, Mr. Sanjay Singh and Mr. Ajay Patel in particular, and also against the other perpetrators who are suspected to have engaged Ajay and Sanjay to threaten and murder Mangala;

4. The accused on arrest must be produced before appropriate time within 24 hours of arrest; and,

5. Appropriate actions to be taken against the Sub-Inspector of Police, Phulpur Police Station for refusing to take action against Sanjay Singh who threatened Mangala at the police station.

I hope that you will take appropriate actions in this case at the earliest.

I am writing to express my concern regarding the failure of the public health service in Uttar Pradesh due to lack of accountability and corruption in the health service sector, particularly at the Public Health Centres (PHC) in rural areas of the state.

I am informed that the PHCs are most often the only source for medical care for the rural poor, particularly the Dalit community in Uttar Pradesh. However, I am concerned about the widespread corruption in the PHCs, which denies proper health care to the rural poor.

For example on September 3, 2007, Ms. Rambha Devi (18 years old), a resident of Rithiya village in Naugarh, Chandauli district went to the Naugarh primary health centre for delivery. Rambha and her family belong to the Chamar community and are too poor to go to a private hospital. I am informed that the Naugarh PHC is the nearest health centre from Rambha's village. I am also informed that the PHC, since it is located near the forest, is not easily accessible, particularly by the pregnant women.

I have heard that the Auxiliary Nursing Mothers (ANM), Ms. Savitri, Ms. Lalti Maurya, Ms. Shanti Pandey and Ms. Daai refused Rambha to be admitted at PHC even though Rambha was in her advanced labour. Since Rambha was denied admission at the PHC, she had to seek help from a private hospital incurring much expense. I am also informed that the ANMs at the PHC refused admission to Rambha on the pretext that Rambha will have complications during the delivery for which the PHC was not equipped for. I am informed that this scaring tactic is regularly used by the staff at the PHC to refuse admission to the general public and thus forcing them to seek private medical aid. I am also informed that through referring people to the private clinics, the staffs at the PHC obtains illegal commissions from the private clinics.

I am also informed of yet another case which reaffirms my belief that the staffs at the Naugarh PHC are corrupt. On September 12, 2007, Ms. Kiran Devi (18 years old) living in Thathwa village of Naugarh, was also refused medical care for her delivery at the Naugarh PHC. Kiran also belongs to Chamar community and is poor.

In Kiran's case the ANM, Ms. Kaushilya, advised Kiran to have a caesarean section at the private hospital and refused to admit Kiran at the PHC. I am surprised to know that unqualified paramedics like the ANMs providing medical diagnosis in your state, which is also a breach of law and a crime. In Kiran's case she was forced to return home, where she delivered safely the next day early in the morning.

Local human rights groups working for the welfare of the people and supporting the government schemes allege that such practices by the ANMs at the Naugarh PHC is very common so that they get a cut from the private clinics for referring patients to be treated at the private clinics by refusing admission at the PHC.

The above two cases are ample enough for me and anyone else to suspect that the staff at the Naugarh PHC are negligent and corrupt. It is reported that many dalit women availing the service of the Naugarh PHC have been either refused medical help or asked to pay a bribe by ANMs. I am informed that they are asked to pay INR 400 to 500 for certificates to claim maternity benefits and INR 5 each for obtaining a medical card. I have learned that the absence of a doctor at the PHC also creates an irresponsible environment for the ANMs.

I have learned that the PHC is a fundamental unit to provide medical service free of cost for the people especially the poor, women, and children. I am also informed that the Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) of Thathwa village is not living in that village but in Tiwarepur village, which affects the availability of that officer for the villagers in Thathwa.

I have also learned that pregnant women are entitled for INR 1400 [35 USD] as maternity aid and INR 250 [6 USD] for transportation costs. However the ANMs at the Naugarh PHC demand bribe from the patients to issue necessary certificates to the patients so that they could collect this aid money from the government.

I therefore urge you to intervene in this situation in order to ensure that the functioning of the PHC in Naugarh is regulated so that the poor, members of the lower caste and children are not denied medical care at the centre. I also request you to initiate an enquiry about the conduct of the entire staff at the Naugarh PHC so that if they are found corrupt, appropriate actions are initiated against these officers.

I hope your appropriate intervention will benefit the poor availing the services of Naugarh PHC and their living condition.

I look forward to your further action in this matter.

Your’s sincerely,

NAGARAJ.M.R.

AN APPEAL TO HONOURABLE FOREIGN MINISTER OF MYANMAR

Dear Minister ,

I am deeply concerned by the reports that thousands of monks and other peaceful protesters, including well-known activists Htay Kywe, Mie Mie, Aung Thu, Aung Gyi and Zaw Htet Ko Ko have been detained.

I strongly urge the Myanmar authorities to release them and those connected to them immediately and unconditionally, unless they are to be charged with recognizably criminal offences. I call on the authorities to ensure that, while they remain in custody, all the detainees are held only in official places of detention, and are given immediate access to lawyers, their families and any medical treatment they may require. I also call on the authorities to ensure that the detainees are not subjected to torture or any other ill-treatment.

I also call on the authorities to release all long-standing prisoners of conscience, including Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the NLD, senior political representatives of the ethnic minorities and members of student activist groups and to reveal the identity and location of all detainees, guarantee their wellbeing and allow immediate access to them.

I call on the authorities to ensure that all people in Myanmar are able to peacefully exercise the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly without fear of harassment, intimidation or arbitrary detention, in line with international human rights standards.